Friday, December 21, 2007

Crooks and Liars lies about Ron Paul’s comments on those who oppose IRS

Liberal political blog Crooks and Liars is once again lying about Ron Paul, and as usual, the lies about him come from one of its frequent bloggers, Nicole Belle. During the Glenn Beck interview with Ron Paul on December 18, the topic moved to the IRS and taxes in which Beck and Paul had this exchange:

Beck: I believe I have read that you say if you don’t pay your taxes, you are in the category of civil disobedience..uh, akin with Gandhi and Martin Luther King…

Paul: ..I think it’s practicing the same principle..yes, because the income tax, they way it’s collected is unconstitutional. And if you believe that, and you practice civil disobedience, you have to suffer the consequences….I chose to try to change the law—I haven’t chosen that method. But people who sincerely believe that it’s unconstitutional be guilty until you prove yourself innocent and be your own…and you have to testify against yourself…I think they have a legitimate cause, ah..it’s a libertarian principle to practice civil disobedience…it’s non-violent..I think it’s a good way of doing it

Ron Paul joins Glenn Beck to further his platform of eliminating taxes and the IRS. I’ll leave aside the fact that a presidential candidate is endorsing citizens break existing laws as a “reasonable civil disobedience” and merely point out that while I think everyone can get behind not having our taxes go to wasteful projects like the black hole of the Iraq occupation or bridges to nowhere, our taxes also pay for a lot of really good things as well–like federal infrastructure, education and health care for seniors and veterans, and I can’t believe people could have spent the last seven years with the Bush Administration and not see the value of keeping those programs funded.

First of all, Ron Paul never said or endorsed citizens to “break existing laws”. He simply stated to Beck that if one was opposed to the income tax because they are convinced it’s unconstitutional, then civil disobedience is “a good way of doing it”. There is a big difference between saying “if you’re opposed to something and you’re already going to fight it or protest it, then non-violent civil disobedience is a good way” and putting your stamp of approval on people breaking laws. Ron Paul clearly said, “if you believe that, and you practice civil disobedience, you have to suffer the consequences”. In other words, “if you protest it, be prepared to go to jail”.

Second of all, Belle says, “break existing laws”. There are no existing laws that say American citizens have to pay taxes. This is the very reason Ron Paul said it is unconstitutional. If it is unconstitutional, then one is breaking no valid law or even one that exists. This is evidenced by several people who have went to court and won their case over not paying taxes, and the many, many people such as Ed and Elaine Brown who have asked the IRS to show them the law in which it says Americans are required to pay taxes, only to receive no answer.

Nicole Belle offers no explanation of how this country existed for 137 years (between 1776 and 1913) without the Internal Revenue Service. She simply states that taxes are needed for a plethora of government programs without explaining how these programs were funded before 1913. I guess this was unimportant to her. Also unimportant to Nicole Belle was to show the ENTIRE clip instead of just 2 and 20 seconds of it.

She slams Ron Paul for saying we should replace the IRS with nothing and wonders where the money would come from to pay for things by saying, “our taxes also pay for a lot of really good things as well–like federal infrastructure, education and health care for seniors and veterans”. What she conveniently leaves out is the rest of the clip where Dr. Paul addresses the fact that the gas tax is supposed to pay for roads, etc.. but it’s being abused. How does she think roads were built before 1913? How was health care dealt with before 1913? How was education funded before 1913?

These are the same people who ignore events where Ron Paul has embraced the black community, like appearing at Morgan State University, a historically black college in Baltimore, Maryland in September for a debate conducted by panelists of color. (Giuliani, Romney, McCain and Thompson did not attend) It seems that a racist would have run far away from this debate, especially since many had wondered if the Republican Party is racist.

Crooks and liars is mostly a left-leaning site and when most of the bloggers post stories condemning people in the media such as Bill O’ Reilly or Sean Hannity, they make valid points and expose people who are true frauds. Nicole Belle is not a fan of Ron Paul and it clearly shows in her biased posts. It’s OK to hate Ron Paul and to be biased in my opinion, but please Nicole, do research and base it on FACTS.

5 comments:

Duh! Sixteenth amendment to the Constitution. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.I think that makes it a law. If it is unconstitutional then the courts need to find it so. But who cares? the constitution is just a formality nowadays anyway, right?

Of course if youre going to make something a law and say its "constitutional" you must put it in the Constitution anyway despite the fact. The fact is---the 16th Amendment was never ratified by the full number of states that it is required to make something an amendment. If you dont know this basic fact, there's no point even discussing this with you. It would be like discussing O.J. Simpson without knowing he killed 2 people. I explained who Nicole Belle is in the article----she is a blogger on the site Crooks and Liars----what else did you need to know, her address?

Hey pluto, do me a favor----call the IRS and tell them to SEND you IN PRINT or WRITING the actual law that requires you to pay the income tax. I bet you a trillion dollars you will be ignored---or they will say "OK" and you'll never get anything in the mail.

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes.." That is not the law, it states congress has the power to make such laws... so then show the law! (not to even mention the nonratification of this amendment and that there are a few supreme court cases after this amendment was introduced that ruled the 16th amendment did NOT empower congress with any new powers to tax.. these rulings were never overturned to this day)